Some of the usual suspects here are claiming “abuse” as if it were a fact, and using it to excuse/explain the murder of an innocent man.
Sorry I didn't respond to this one earlier but I must have missed it in the flurry of posts. I seldom fail to respond to hypocricy this blantant.
You posted: "There was no abuse." (post 163)
Aren't you doing exactly the same thing? You are claiming "no abuse" as if it were a fact. Isn't it more accurate to claim that it is not known if abuse was present or not? I fail to see where your dogmatism is any more valid than theirs. Maybe you can enlighten me?